NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally wouldn't go around ruling out communism on the large scale it seems a rather silly thing to do no? if I remember correctly Republicanism was once scoffed at by the Kings of ye olde times

I'm also trying to resist Monty Python quotes so I can't really think straight;)

edit: the person who posts first in my thread has cooties look who it is V

The idea of everyone working together and all then getting what they need has largely worked in small communities such as different tribes. However these societies have been largely unindustralised and work only on a small scale. Would it be possible to have a working, industralised communist society on a small scale, say less than 50,000 people?

Cooties eh, I always had the feeling there was something wrong with Soviestan, but I couln't quite put my finger on it. :p

I heard he kissed a mod behind the old bike shed!

The idea of everyone working together and all then getting what they need has largely worked in small communities such as different tribes. However these societies have been largely unindustralised and work only on a small scale. Would it be possible to have a working, industralised communist society on a small scale, say less than 50,000 people?

Well, it hasn't been done very successfully yet. :rolleyes: Those of you who want to try can gather up your people, find a place to go, and have a nut. Just don't try it here as I am very protective of what I have worked to build for my family and myself.

Cooties eh, I always had the feeling there was something wrong with Soviestan, but I couln't quite put my finger on it. :p

Would it be possible to have a working, industralised communist society on a small scale, say less than 50,000 people?

not without some ridiculous levels of automation. not enough people to get everything done that needs doing for an industrial society. unless you meant as a communist pocket within a larger society. but that doesn't really make things better.

I heard he kissed a mod behind the old bike shed!

Now the truth comes out! :D

The idea of everyone working together and all then getting what they need has largely worked in small communities such as different tribes. However these societies have been largely unindustralised and work only on a small scale. Would it be possible to have a working, industralised communist society on a small scale, say less than 50,000 people?

Yes, it is possible, but I think it would get wiped out pretty quickly by any regional power with a half-decent military. Not to mention at populations that low, the country would be in a rough time. The death of one of the nation's ten doctors or a drought of any magnitude would be enough to throw the nation into a crisis.

And the communist society wouldn't be as paradisal as one would think. The government would have to take extraordinary measures to maintain communism, which is a rather fragile system.

It worked many times until various national police and military forces or private thugs used often deadly force to prove the superiority of a hands-off approach to society and the economy...

Well, it hasn't been done very successfully yet. :rolleyes:


On the contrary, one need only observe a great many worker owned and operated enterprises, be they actual for- and non-profit businesses and cooperatives, or other ventures aimed at providing various social services and goods to their constituent members. Then there are, of course, any number of larger entities that contain all of the above, including trade unions and guilds.

The success of all kinds of collective endeavors, including those based explitictly on or incorporating significant aspects of socialist and communist ideology, is well established if one would only look.

No, none of the above successes are examples of successful communist/socialist government or states. This is a feature, not a flaw.


...I am very protective of what I have worked to build for my family and myself.


Going back at least 200 years, to the early 1800's and the foundation of contemporary socialist thought, one will find that this sentiment is a founding principle (even if forgotten by some (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninism))

Oh dear... Discussions about 'communism' when none of the people have likely read Marx...

Oh dear... Discussions about 'communism' when none of the people have likely read Marx...

Personnaly, I dispise Marx.
Thinking that Saint-Simon made a far better theory of true socialism.

Yes, communism could work, in little community, as far as they don't try to challenge corporations.
On a large scale, could only work in a world-like country.

PS: you guys really think that capitalism is " working" ?

The problem with communism is that it fails to recognise that human beings are human beings and as such often lust after wealth.

The problem with capitalism is that it recognises that fact far too well.

:(

Haha, true words///

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.

It can't work if the human mind needs to create any form of generalized other. Small, nomadic tribes and villages? Sure. Entire nations? Not so much. Everyone has to know everyone, be willing to trust everyone else, be willing to not cheat anyone else, and be ready to defend everyone else. Not too many humans are willing to do this, so communism ends up failing.

No, because modern industrialization inevitably requires a lot of capital; you need raw amounts of money to purchase the machines and build the factories necessary to achieve an industrial society. This doesn't mean socialism is impossible, since it still retains many capitalist aspects in addition to its other values, but communism by itself cannot generate the capital necessary for real industrialization.

However, in the future if and when the industrial base becomes diversified and distributed, thereby reducing the need for centralized production facilities, this situation may change.

The idea of everyone working together and all then getting what they need has largely worked in small communities such as different tribes. However these societies have been largely unindustralised and work only on a small scale. Would it be possible to have a working, industralised communist society on a small scale, say less than 50,000 people?

Yawn. The Spanish Revolution, look it up. Specifically the part where the anarcho-syndicalists took over the factories and ran them themselves. Also the part where it was 3 million people.

Yawn. The Spanish Revolution, look it up. Specifically the part where the anarcho-syndicalists took over the factories and ran them themselves. Also the part where it was 3 million people.

Those factories were already built using capital, however. The more important question is how many new factories did they build, and how effective they were at maintaining those already operational.

50,000?

Maybe, but not for long. Communism is based on "community", and on something as close to one's heart as whether or not you can buy a toy for your child a community needs a face on it. So you need small groups where everyone knows everyone for people to feel sufficiently sympathetic to each other to make sacrifices.

So you'd have a sort of cell-system, with small communities being linked up with others. But if differences in wealth between cells become too large, and a cell stands to lose a lot of its produce to a cell far away full of strangers, people might start asking questions. It would fall apart because getting a group of people to make sacrifices for another group is even harder than getting an individual to do so for another individual - even more so if decisions have to be at least somewhat unanimous.

That being said, real communism would also feature the elimination of scarcity, in which case these decisions wouldn't have to be made. But I leave that untouched, because it's just silly.

Nonetheless, less utopian "leftist" creations have certainly reached sizes like that. Mondragon comes to mind.

The idea of everyone working together and all then getting what they need has largely worked in small communities such as different tribes. However these societies have been largely unindustralised and work only on a small scale. Would it be possible to have a working, industralised communist society on a small scale, say less than 50,000 people?Yes. It probably wouldn't work with too many more people that that, but up to 100,000 or so could probably work.

Oh dear... Discussions about 'communism' when none of the people have likely read Marx...Even if this was the case, Marx wasn't the only communist theorist, and most certainly not the best one.

Oh dear... Discussions about 'communism' when none of the people have likely read Marx...

I prefer them to the discussions about communism when all of the people have read Marx and think themselves so much more learned for having done so.

Just don't try it here as I am very protective of what I have worked to build for my family and myself.

This concept always amuses me.

It suggests that whoever has most toys, must have worked hardest. It ignores the simple facts of location, and how that affects your access to work and/or reward - and that's just the start.

Seriously - I'm sure you feel like you've really put yourself on the line to accumulate a certain standard for yourself and your family, but do you honestly think that's some kind of true measure of how 'hard you've worked'.

Claiming it as though you deserve it, kind of suggests there must be some empirical scale of work versus reward - but that just doesn't happen. A pretty casual glance at the globe shows that the less resources available to you, the harder you're likely to work for them.

It's funny how communism is always put down as an entitlement issue, where 'mine is mine' and 'you've no right to take it'... but that argument chooses to ignore the intrinsic entitlement issue... and what makes it 'right' for you to 'take it' to begin with.

Oh dear... Discussions about 'communism' when none of the people have likely read Marx...

Do you have to read the works of Adam Smith before you can discuss Capitalism?

No, because modern industrialization inevitably requires a lot of capital; you need raw amounts of money to purchase the machines and build the factories necessary to achieve an industrial society.

No, you don't.

You just need the resources and workforce.

But even if you were right - that would only inhibit the industrialisation of a non-industrialised society at the point where the economic model changed. A society that already HAD the machines and factories would already have the resources for an industrial society.

Fortunately, this is academic.

Communism can work, even on a large scale, if you can eliminate want.

The most fundamental breakdown in large scale communism occurs in one of it's defining statements - "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." The breakdown occurs because people not only need, they also want. Bread and water are food for the body - wine and pasta are what we actually desire.

Assuming you can produce sufficiently to meet all needs, and that's quite an assumption, you then have to go about distributing what's left over and what there isn't enough of for everyone. How do you do that? What is the most equitable method of dividing 500 servings of steak among 20 000 consumers? All of whom have an equal claim?

Whatever method you use, someone will lose out. When someone loses out, they become angry - and they try to make sure they don't lose out again. Competition, the dragon once slain, crawls again from it's musty cave...and communism starts to fall apart, yet again.

Communism can work, even on a large scale, if you can eliminate want.

The most fundamental breakdown in large scale communism occurs in one of it's defining statements - "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." The breakdown occurs because people not only need, they also want. Bread and water are food for the body - wine and pasta are what we actually desire.


The breakdown seems to have historically arisen in communisms for the same reason it has in capitalisms - a regime in power that is corrupt and self-serving.


Assuming you can produce sufficiently to meet all needs, and that's quite an assumption, you then have to go about distributing what's left over and what there isn't enough of for everyone. How do you do that? What is the most equitable method of dividing 500 servings of steak among 20 000 consumers? All of whom have an equal claim?


If everyone has equal claim, the answer really isn't that hard - you just cut the steaks really small. Alternatively... you change your procedure so that you have more steaks. Or maybe you just rotate who gets steaks at any given time?


Whatever method you use, someone will lose out. When someone loses out, they become angry - and they try to make sure they don't lose out again. Competition, the dragon once slain, crawls again from it's musty cave...and communism starts to fall apart, yet again.

The problem is in the perception that 'getting the same as everyone else' is somehow 'losing out'.

I hate communism full stop.

The breakdown seems to have historically arisen in communisms for the same reason it has in capitalisms - a regime in power that is corrupt and self-serving.

That certainly hasn't helped. But it could be argued that, at least in some cases, the self-serving, corrupt government has been the symptom of the underlying problem of lack of want-fulfillment, rather than the cause. If the only way to get what you want is corruption, you either do without, or become corrupt.



If everyone has equal claim, the answer really isn't that hard - you just cut the steaks really small. Alternatively... you change your procedure so that you have more steaks. Or maybe you just rotate who gets steaks at any given time?

All valid, as far as steaks go. Not so easy to divide, say, motorboats, or holidays by the sea. Rota systems work to a point, but if production falls below demand to too great an extent, a person could go their whole lives and never see a luxury they are, technically, entitled to. Which is functionally the same as denying them that luxury.



The problem is in the perception that 'getting the same as everyone else' is somehow 'losing out'.

I don't entirely agree. I think the real perception problem is "He's getting more than I am," regardless of whether that perception is actually true.

In capitalist society, for most items, we're taught that if we want something enough, then if we scrimp and save, take out loans and work hard, we can get it. If someone else has more, he probably earned it; you can do the same. Now, I know that this is all too often an illusion; those trapped in poverty often find no way out, and their dreams are dust no matter their efforts. But it's the reason we have a remarkable lack of resentment of the rich - they made it, and if we're careful and lucky, so can we, or so we tell ourselves.

But the ideals of socialism are that everyone should have the same. So, if anyone, ANYONE, gets more, or is seen as getting more, the resentment against that person - and against the system that has so clearly failed - would be truly immense.

Just because everyone has what they need does not mean everyone has to get the same.

Just to be clear, I advocate a gift based system, basically. I have, you need, so I give it to you. More accurate, we both have it, and whoever needs it uses it.

Under such a system there's no need for a centralised state to distribute, or anything of the source. Each has what they need, and life can continue. Where is the inequity in that?

Communism would work in today's world, the reasons it failed in the 1920's was because A: it was too new of a system, and had too many "bugs" to be ironed out. and B: the changes were too fast. A country changing to communism would take a hundred or so years, with the government steadily taking control of power, gas, internet, ect at first, then moving on to a steady redistribution of wealth and land, while absorbing more of the countries manufacturing and retail., starting with the big names and moving down the list.

The problem with communism is that it fails to recognise that human beings are human beings and as such often lust after wealth.

The problem with capitalism is that it recognises that fact far too well.

:(

But is this innate or something we develop through our culture? The idea of "lusting after wealth" is a western concept, no? So theoretically if humans do not know of greed or materialism they would be willing to accept a system that is one for all and all for one. However the problem with communism is largely idealistic or the theories apply to eras gone by. It would take new, modern communist theorists to come up with a system to make communism work in today's world. Not only that but it would take a complete overhaul of societal thinking.

The idea of everyone working together and all then getting what they need has largely worked in small communities such as different tribes. However these societies have been largely unindustralised and work only on a small scale. Would it be possible to have a working, industralised communist society on a small scale, say less than 50,000 people?

It would depend upon how many less than 50k you're talking about. If, say you're talking about approximately 49k less, than sure, otherwise, no probably not.

I hate communism full stop.

Wow thats a really good argument.:rolleyes:

I mentioned this on another thread, and Ill mention it again:

In what little of 'The Communist Manifest' I have read, I came to the part about how under capitalism, Labor is a commodity, just like a cart, or a wheelbarrow. In Capiltalism, it is treated as such, and therefore the cost of the 'production of labor' is considered, just as the cost of the production of the wheelbarrow is considered. However, the cost of the 'production of labor' is simply the amount of money needed to keep a constant supply of labor, and nothing more. Labor then experiences the same market forces as commodities do, which means that the price of labor is then simply the minimum price that can sustain a constant labor supply. This minimum (It has nothing to do with the actual VALUE of the work the labor produces) is basically providing the actual people who make up this labor with enough for food and basic shelter, to keep the labor from literally dying out.

Is that what you call working? These days, I think it has become worse than what Marx suggests here, since many people who work at one job at minimum wage don't even get paid enough for living, and need to take two jobs to make ends meet. Probably since the available labor supply has become so large, the 'cost of the production of labor' does not even include being able to keep your labor force alive, since there are enough to go around. This is what you call the 'success' of capitalism?:headbang:

Alot of these OP questions etc and naive 'communism doesn't work' infantile arguments would be solved in people actually read up on Marx before thinking that they represent the be-all and end-all of human knowledge.

Alot of these OP questions etc and naive 'communism doesn't work' infantile arguments would be solved in people actually read up on Marx before thinking that they represent the be-all and end-all of human knowledge.

And perhaps you would open your mind if you started realising that your Marx God is also not the be-all and end-all of human knowledge. Stating that any political theory, as you do, is an empirical fact would immediately severely discredit any argument made by such person, especially with you when you claim such a hypothetical theory like Marxism is objective reality.

Alot of these OP questions etc and naive 'communism doesn't work' infantile arguments would be solved in people actually read up on Marx before thinking that they represent the be-all and end-all of human knowledge.

You keep stating that 'communism doesn't work' is a naive/stupid/infantile comment, and yet when asked for an example of communism operating successfully, the only thing you can come up with is the Soviet Union, which since their economy collapsed (taking the country with it) merely proves the point that you are claiming is naive.

And perhaps you would open your mind if you started realising that your Marx God is also not the be-all and end-all of human knowledge. Stating that any political theory, as you do, is an empirical fact would immediately severely discredit any argument made by such person, especially with you when you claim such a hypothetical theory like Marxism is objective reality.

Actually, I think arguments based on the necessary failure of socialism/communism to generate capital or to take into consideration people's desire to make a living or be otherwise materially successful are missing key aspects of socialist/communist theory, at least as how I understand it. At the heart of socialist theory is the question of ownership and control. All that socialism posits is that all of those in the enterprise involved in producing the widgets deserve an equal share in the ownership and decision-making process. This is, of course, a natural reaction to the conditions of the Industrial Revolution where workers were compelled to work (no, choosing to not work and thus starve is not a valid option) in obviously unhealthy conditions with little means of changing their situation.

There is nothing that makes such collective ownership and control of a business enterprise impossible. Even the contemporary corporation embodies significant aspects of collective ownership, in terms of the shareholder, even if effective control is still essentially restricted to an elite few who can afford to buy a meaningful stake in the company. The condition of industry is, of course, far improved compared to what prevailed when socialism was in its infancy, however, the normative imperative is still placed on serving the shareholder, which doesn't necessarily include everyone with a stake in the entire enterprise. Although relatively rare, the occasional Enron or Arthur Anderson happens along and ends up screwing the shareholder, employee, customer, and all else to a fantastic degree. Thus, arguments concerning the danger of centralizing control into the hands of a relative few -- who do not necessarily share the same interests as shareholder, employee, or customer -- can still be made.

But none of this necessarily removes the ability to raise capital, put forth a product, or even make a profit. Again, all kinds of successful social enterprise exists which demonstrates the viability of decentralized and distributed ownership and control. Save for the sort of law that establishes and regulates corporate, cooperative, and other sorts of business structures, direct government intervention is not necessary in order to make such social enterprises work.

This, of course, was the key mistake that Marx and his ideological descendants made. They thought that they could tame the tool of oligarchy, the tool used to deprive the honest laborer/entrepreneur of his legacy since time immemorial. Of course, all that happened was the re-creation of the same oligarchy, only flying a red flag.

The Proudhonians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29) and Bakuninites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism) warned the statists of their folly at the First International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_International), but, of course, history is what it is.

For the anti-authoritarians, the key has always been the decentralized and distributed ownership and control of the workplace, where everyone involved deserves a say because everyone involved is at risk from poor management; but where the individual risks only himself in his own private affairs, his person, wages, and possessions/"property" are his to dispose of however he wishes.

While the previous tirad was very impressive, I would like to take a shot at a smaller rant.

The best formed argument against communism, or collectivism of any kind, are the philosophies of Ayn Rand displayed in her philisophical novel, Atlas Shrugged. She identifies the concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (the basic mantra of communism) as the essence of evil. In a nutshell, the book justifies the fact that people deserve all that they earn, which is what capitalism allows, because they do not recieve money but by the exchange of money for something that others desire of them. The amount of money that they get is determined by how valuable they are to the rest of society.

Rand establishes ability as the only definable measure of wealth.

In one of the protagonist's "Aristocracy of Pull" speech, Ayn gives the argument that money is the root of all good, because money motivates in a way that can only be replaced by force.

The plight of the poor is only adressed by Rand by saying that no man has any obligation to another, unless the first man reconizes and shares the values of the poor man. This means that monetary aid can and will be given by those who pay to honor their shared values.

There's the Objectivist view (Objectivism being the name of philosophy founded by Ayn Rand)

Coming from a former Marxist, I think Communism is still a decent idea. In fact, I think it is beneficial for certain places. but i no longer believe that it is the be all end all of human evolution. Marx's analysis of history economically is excellent and fairly accurate, but over simplfied. and what kinda drifted me from Communism was the lack of nationalism and spirituality in its doctrine.

Strasserism is where it's at in my opinion

The best formed argument against communism, or collectivism of any kind, are the philosophies of Ayn Rand displayed in her philisophical novel, Atlas Shrugged.


I'm actually quite skeptical of communism/collectivism myself, but I would never invoke Ayn Rand. Answering Marxist ad-hominems and non-sequiturs with Objectivist ad-hominems and non-sequiturs is hardly a solution.

Here's why...


She identifies the concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (the basic mantra of communism)


Such is the basic mantra of Karl Marx, and, as one has already observed in this thread, Marx is the target of a great deal of criticism, if not rejection outright, by all sorts of socialists and communists.


In a nutshell, the book justifies the fact that people deserve all that they earn, ...because they do not recieve money but by the exchange of money for something that others desire of them.


Read about the Proudhonians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/mutualism_(economic_theory)) and Bakuninites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/anarcho-collectivism) (contemporaries, if not predecessors, of Marx) and demonstrate where they necessarily disagree with the above.


In one of the protagonist's "Aristocracy of Pull" speech, Ayn gives the argument that money is the root of all good, because money motivates in a way that can only be replaced by force.


Of course, the hidden assumption is that the ends to which one is motivated are always good, which is completely false. One can be motivated to ends that are "evil" by money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/crony_capitalism) and by force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/state_socialism) alike.

While the previous tirad was very impressive, I would like to take a shot at a smaller rant.

The best formed argument against communism, or collectivism of any kind, are the philosophies of Ayn Rand displayed in her philisophical novel, Atlas Shrugged. She identifies the concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (the basic mantra of communism) as the essence of evil. In a nutshell, the book justifies the fact that people deserve all that they earn, which is what capitalism allows, because they do not recieve money but by the exchange of money for something that others desire of them. The amount of money that they get is determined by how valuable they are to the rest of society.Really? The rest of society? How strange. I don't recall being consulted as to what the CEO of Wal-Mart should be compensated.

Rand establishes ability as the only definable measure of wealth.And how is ability to be measured?

In one of the protagonist's "Aristocracy of Pull" speech, Ayn gives the argument that money is the root of all good, because money motivates in a way that can only be replaced by force.

The plight of the poor is only adressed by Rand by saying that no man has any obligation to another, unless the first man reconizes and shares the values of the poor man. This means that monetary aid can and will be given by those who pay to honor their shared values.

There's the Objectivist view (Objectivism being the name of philosophy founded by Ayn Rand)There's a current thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=549122) about this very thing.

You keep stating that 'communism doesn't work' is a naive/stupid/infantile comment, and yet when asked for an example of communism operating successfully, the only thing you can come up with is the Soviet Union, which since their economy collapsed (taking the country with it) merely proves the point that you are claiming is naive.
But the socialist economy under Stalin didn't collapse, what collapsed in 1991 was not socialism. What was abolished, along with the Soviet Union, in 1991 virtually without opposition, was not -socialism, but a particularly corrupt -and undemocratic form of capitalism akin to fascism. Collectivization was effectively abolished in the 1957 congress of CPSU under Krushev, thereupon Marxism was repudiated and set the scene for the introduction of statist-style corporatism by Brezhnev and eventually full-blown bourgeois capitalism under Gorbachev. Interesting that no one mentions that the 'capitalist' economy under Yeltsin completely collapsed in the 90's.

Socialism was not failed, capitalism failed, I suggest a read of this well sourced work so you can realize that post Stalin the Soviet Union effectively restored capitalism in all but name:
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html


It's also funny that when, after the counter—revolution had been completed, Boris Yeltsin published official figures of Soviet prisoners, they turned out to be less than in the United States, and the world press was strangely silent.

Rand establishes ability as the only definable measure of wealth.


WHich is why Rand is instantly dismissable - she has apparently never encountered 'reality'.

I'm pretty sure, most everyone posting on this forum can trip off a half dozen stories from their own lives, or those of close friends or family, where 'ability' has been far less than a measure of their actual wealth.

The belief that ability ever necessarily transforms in some direct mechanism to wealth, is far more of a stretch of the imagination than conceptualising a working communism - even ON Marx's terms.

The main argument around here against communism seems to be the old 'human nature' and 'would never work' scenarios, sprinkled liberally with vague references to the events of 91~, I think if you want to talk about how 'communism' fell I'd look at the revisionist thesis of the CPSU General Congress in 1957, when Marxism was all but repudiated by Khrushchev and he thereupon went about introducing market mechanisms, introducing the powers of the 'employers' to hire and fire, and replacement of the soviet worker councils with corporate models influenced by bourgeois statist models. Stalin actually was in a minority of the party before his death, and he worked hard to get rid of bourgeois economists infiltrating the Central Planning Board of the SU, this culminating in the so-called 'Leningrad Affair'.

Brezhnev completely obliterated collectivization and the power of the unionized soviets (and thus the workers), and instead empowered a new class of 'bosses', it fascism in all but name. This of course led to the Sino-Soviet split, whereupon Mao theorized (correctly) that Brezhnev had dismantled socialism, which led to the border war and Brezhnev threatening to use nuclear weapons.

Seriously, people should stop getting such a one-dimensional and may I say 'bourgeois' view of history, I expressly recommend a reading of my link above.

The main argument around here against communism seems to be the old ‘human nature’ and ‘would never work’ scenarios, sprinkled liberally with vague references to the events of 91~
That, and a disliking for totalitarianism, pogroms, Gulags, personality cults and general limitation on fun.

Stalin actually was in a minority of the party before his death, and he worked hard to get rid of bourgeois economists infiltrating the Central Planning Board of the SU
Like Sam Fisher?

But the socialist economy under Stalin didn't collapse, what collapsed in 1991 was not socialism. What was abolished, along with the Soviet Union, in 1991 virtually without opposition, was not -socialism, but a particularly corrupt -and undemocratic form of capitalism akin to fascism. Collectivization was effectively abolished in the 1957 congress of CPSU under Krushev, thereupon Marxism was repudiated and set the scene for the introduction of statist-style corporatism by Brezhnev and eventually full-blown bourgeois capitalism under Gorbachev. Interesting that no one mentions that the 'capitalist' economy under Yeltsin completely collapsed in the 90's.

The economy and economic policies under Khrushchev were the healthiest, most prosperous, most advanced and most beneficial to the Soviet people in the Union's history. No other period saw living standards rise as quickly, the quality of goods and services increase the most, or the country achieve such leaps in technological development. It was the closest thing to a truly peaceful, prosperous, and stable period the country probably ever saw in its entire history. Their implementation of economic theory and emphasis on productivity gave the economy the resources necessary to develop it and reduce the huge imbalances created by Stalinism.

Khrushchev and the other reformers of the 1950's did more to ensure the survival of the Soviet Union than any others. The Stalinst era brought the country dangerously close to economic collapse in the aftermath of WWII, requiring Malenkov and Khrushchev to implement widespread reforms to ensure the continued growth and development of the country. When Stalin left power, the USSR had one of the highest income inequality rates in the world, and when Khrushchev left he had successfully reduced it to a level lower than any other industrial power of the time. The Soviet Union was a lot closer to communism by 1964 than it was in 1953.

The economy and economic policies under Khrushchev were the healthiest, most prosperous, most advanced and most beneficial to the Soviet people in the Union's history.

Yes, well, Anti-Revisionism has never been about reason or empirical fact. They never do manage to explain how a true dictatorship of the proletariat (as opposed to a dictatorship of the upper party members) could ever be overthrown by a few bourgeois revisionists.

Yes, well, Anti-Revisionism has never been about reason or empirical fact. They never do manage to explain how a true dictatorship of the proletariat (as opposed to a dictatorship of the upper party members) could ever be overthrown by a few bourgeois revisionists.

Quite true

*waits impatiently for Andaras to reply*

I haven't been here long, but I'm willing to bet most (if not all) communists here do not regard Andaras as a real communist.

I haven't been here long, but I'm willing to bet most (if not all) communists here do not regard Andaras as a real communist.

As one of the aforementioned communists, I must say that you are stunningly accurate in your analysis.

I haven't been here long, but I'm willing to bet most (if not all) communists here do not regard Andaras as a real communist.

;)
Karl Marx is the one true god, and Stalin is his prophet

;)

When/where did he post that? Wow...

;)

ROFLMAO

When/where did he post that? Wow...

That's what his rants amount to...
and no he never actually posted that...

:(
*slinks away in shame*

That's what his rants amount to...
and no he never actually posted that...

:(
*slinks away in shame*

Could have fooled me. ;)

That's what his rants amount to...
and no he never actually posted that...

:(
*slinks away in shame*

No harm done. But that's what his posts amount to.

No harm done. But that's what his posts amount to.

He'll probably be rather offended when he reads it :p

*wasn't really ashamed *

Yes, well, Anti-Revisionism has never been about reason or empirical fact. They never do manage to explain how a true dictatorship of the proletariat (as opposed to a dictatorship of the upper party members) could ever be overthrown by a few bourgeois revisionists.
Didn't I just explain exactly how it happened, or where you not listening?...

Either way half-baked liberals like Trotskylvania can hardly be called 'socialists', and it's offensive to the millions of workers who fought for socialism that people like him can spit on their graves by revising and deviating from Marxism. Ultimately the choice is between Utopian and scientific socialism,. between this new breed of naive teenage styled liberals who wouldn't know self-criticism if it hit them in the head, and true Marxist-Leninists, who are practical.

Apparently scoring -9.88, -9.44 on the political compass makes me a "half-baked liberal".:rolleyes:

So does holding an unwavering faith in direct action, a complete opposition to parliamentarianism, and explicitly communist social views...

Apparently scoring -9.88, -9.44 on the political compass makes me a "half-baked liberal".:rolleyes:

So does holding an unwavering faith in direct action, a complete opposition to parliamentarianism, and explicitly communist social views...

Maybe you're not chanting Big Brother's praises loudly enough? ;)